There is a difference between minimizing your taxes by following the law and minimizing your taxes by breaking the law in ways that are too difficult or expensive to prove.
Regarding regulation generally, Uber claims to be the first—but when your market cap is that high, nothing should be too expensive to prove.
A man who will slap his name on bottled water and steaks for a few bucks is probably very easily bought. I don't understand how you can believe otherwise.
Having said that, Trump supported the Gulf War before he was against it, and I consider forcing Mexico to pay for a wall very bellicose talk. Trump's entire schtick is either U.S. against the world, or us (white-ish people) against everyone else. The only way to deliver on that message is though international violence and domestic marginalization of already marginal populations. He is a warmonger, against "enemies," foreign and domestic.
I don't think there is evidence that Trump sincerely believes much of anything, but "making America great" means different things to different people. Trump's ethos of exploitation is obvious from where his clothing is made, his "university," his resorts, and how he treats people he does business with. Also, look at his taxes if you ever get the chance.
Thanks. Only the Bernieite fringe worpress blog suggested actual malfeasance.
The DailyKos article linked to by your inquisitr link suggested that that scandal was the crappyness of the machines.
The NY purge issue was well publicized, and problematic, but neither that, nor the incompetent administration of the election in Arizona seem to have meaningfully benefitted Clinton.
Rather than not voting, why don't you vote and be one of the poll watchers. If the whole thing really is rigged, you can report Irregularities to the FEC and press.
Accepting for the moment your criticism of HRC (and ignoring for the moment that Trump is the incarnate apotheosis of the Republican party, and not its hijacker), doesn't Trump also possess all the negative qualities you ascribe to HRC? Isn't it fair to say that 1) Trump is a loud-mouth, bombastic blatant racist who encourages violence, and completely blatantly corrupt while also an obvious warmonger, and also so blatantly in favor of enriching the 0.01%;
and 2) Hillary is only half as bad?
My quick Google search (nach) only shows only Bernieite fringe media coverage of similar allegations and none describing quite what you are describing. Do you have a source?
Wikipedia says Holder's net worth is $10m, so I doubt he makes that per year. Any source for that, or the allegation that he waited until after the statute of limitations had run to prosecute the banks?
OP was talking about a particular building. But I think having a camera with 1980s technology just about anywhere in public is unproblematic, because I don't expect my public movement to be completely private—and using 1980s means that the government (or whoever) must expend real resources to track my movements.
Using facial recognition, it is easy to track where everyone goes, and we can no longer rely of the laws of economics to protect our privacy.
In this case (and adding to my post below) the defendants may have another argument that they never consented to the relevant recordings, since their appearance in court may not have been voluntary (if they were subpoenaed) or because they should not have to give up X-much privacy (where X is having their conversation recorded) to voluntarily exercise their right to appear in court.
It may be that there is a sign in the basement that says "THIS BUILDING AND THE SURROUNDING PREMISES ARE BEING RECORDED. BEWARE OF THE THE LEOPARD." If so, the FBI would argue that the people consented to the recording by being on the premises and having the conversation. The problem with this that the quality of the audio is apparently much greater than I would expect (and probably not where I would expect).
The defendants should have a good case to exclude the evidence, since they cannot be reasonably said to consent to the recording.
This is too bad, since I really don't like big firms conspiring to rip off taxpayers.
IDK, I remember going to stores and stuff in the early 80s and they had CCTV. It was not at all uncommon and I don't think the stores lost much business because of it (less than theft or they would have stopped doing it).
If your driving isn't showing impairment you aren't too intoxicated to drive.
There is an admirable Hunter S. Thompson logic to your statement. But by that standard many people will find that they suddenly became "too intoxicated to drive" on a straight road when it curved right in front of them
I am about to dump my Windows Phone because there are many apps I miss and many features I miss in the existing apps. Also the Beta version of 10 for my phone is unacceptably crashy.
I upgraded for bells and whistles, but WP 8 was really good and Metro is perfect for single task devices.
There is a strong current of right-wing thought that casts fascism as socialism by latching on to the facts regurgitated in GP's post above and ignoring the facts to the contrary (see Spanish Civil War and WW2).
I think they do this to bolster Goldwater's assertion that "Extremism in defense of liberty [i.e. right-wing goals] is no vice," and blame all the evil of the 20th century on forms of leftism (as if Stalin and Mao weren't bad enough).
The fact that HRC's father "[Hugh] Rodham found work there selling drapery fabrics around the Midwest, sending the money he made back home," suggests that he was not the son of a textile mogul. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04...
If he were really the son of a textile mogul, I doubt he would have become a traveling salesman, and I doubt that he would have sent the money home for his parents to live on.
This isn't something I've researched beyond 5 minutes of googling, so if I am missing something, let me know. But both Wikipedia and the NYT obit of HRC's father indicate that HRC's paternal grandfather was merely an employee of the textile mill where HRC's father worked before becoming a traveling salesman.
However Hough Rodham did well enough to retire from business at 59, so he may have wound up fairly well off.
There may be good reasons to have authority to (de)escalate outside the hands of the flight crew. I can't think of any though, since they have more literal skin in the game than anyone else.
That woman needs to be shamed for being stupid, but more importantly, for denouncing someone out of the norm to the authorities.
People used to do that in German occupied countries during WWII: they tipped off the Gestapo that this-or-that person looked or acted Jewish, or didn't seem to like the occupants, etc.
The "see something, say something" policy seems to be like the publicly accessible brakes that they used to have on trains: if the person wrong, then you have delay and an incensed economist; if the person is right, you have avoided a mass tragedy.
If we could quantify how much delay and hurt feelings == one human life, then we could know how often these people would have to be right to justify the program and anonymity of the tipsters. But I don't think it is a close call.
Almost needless to say that alerting the authorities when you see someone doing something suspicious on a plane is very different from turning Jews over to the Gestapo. Unfortunately this woman's definition of "suspicious" was influenced by ethnic prejudices. But if we want intelligent and rational people to "say something" then you will need to let quite a few prejudiced and overly suspicious people do this.
She got a law degree from Yale, which a lot of people find impressive.
She helped build civil rights cases in the South, which a lot of people find admirable.
She was actually re-elected to the Senate—so elected twice.
If the her appointment as SoS was to placate her, then presumably she built enough genuine support to need placating (nobody is placating Cruz or Kaisch, after all).
Very few people at that level can claim to have done it on their own. Trump is the son of a millionaire real estate developer (who's ROI is less than an index fund would have produced); Romney is the son of a millionaire industrialist and governor; McCain's father was an admiral and his wife is a beer heiress; George W is the son of a President and his father is the son of a wealthy banker and senator.
I hope you didn't accidentally vote for any of these people!
If you object to the extra hop that your signal would take, and assuming probable cause and warrant: 1) would you be OK with the telephone company providing realtime telemetry to LEOs;2) would you be OK with a stingray that only caused an extra hop for the warranted phone?
Yeah, the value of the stuff stolen is beside the point: robbery is much worse than theft. I think the most likely scenario is that they employee was robbed of the chicken wings and his/her cell phone, and that police inferred that whoever had the cell was the robber (how else would they know the IMEI, phone number or the suspect?).
I am OK with intercepting a signals from an stolen phone because there is no reasonable privacy expectation in something you stole.
There is enough intertia in the anti-Clinton vicious cycle to continue forever, The sheer volume of manufactured scandals has made people believe that *some* of them must be true—and when one scandal fizzles, they latch onto the next, hoping for vindication.
Kenneth Starr exonerated the Clintons for "Travelgate" and "Filegate" (waiting until after the 1998 election to do so). Yet I bet we will hear all about them, as if nothing was ever resolved.
Republicans still harp on Hillery's cattle futures windfall (savvy investor enrages Republicans)
Whitewater was a bust, but we will hear all about Clinton's pardons of some people convicted in that investigation (his alternative was to let friends remain in jail for stuff that would have never been prosecuted but for the chance of impeaching him).
And now we can add Benghazi victims to the Clinton Death List that our elderly acquaintances forward around.
Accepting your premise for the moment (even though it suggests that corporations and aliens should be tax exempt): If you are the buyer, then you are "paying" for the representation in your home state, if you are the out-of-state seller, then you are collecting taxes, but not actually paying them.
It is ironic and unfortunate that South Dakota—which got rid of usury laws to attract credit card companies to their state—now complains that out-of-state vendors aren't paying their fair share.
Look, OBVIOUSLY it is possible to get permission to legally drive a vehicle around full of gasoline...
It is also obviously legal to fill a car with gasoline at places other than gas stations - people that run out of gas do this all the time using a one gallon container.
There would have to be a specific law prohibiting this particular job.
In Los Angeles (and probably everywhere), you cannot sell gas without having a special license and approval from some weights and measures agency, so it is illegal by default and I doubt any bureaucrat wants to risk their career by approving this — even if somehow all safety and emissions requirements were met.
I am reminded of a story here a few years ago, where a guy built a pedicab out of parking-sign poles and was not given a license to carry passengers because the local authority had no way of knowing it wouldn't fail catastrophically.
Slashdot Mirror
Regarding regulation generally, Uber claims to be the first—but when your market cap is that high, nothing should be too expensive to prove.
Having said that, Trump supported the Gulf War before he was against it, and I consider forcing Mexico to pay for a wall very bellicose talk. Trump's entire schtick is either U.S. against the world, or us (white-ish people) against everyone else. The only way to deliver on that message is though international violence and domestic marginalization of already marginal populations. He is a warmonger, against "enemies," foreign and domestic.
I don't think there is evidence that Trump sincerely believes much of anything, but "making America great" means different things to different people. Trump's ethos of exploitation is obvious from where his clothing is made, his "university," his resorts, and how he treats people he does business with. Also, look at his taxes if you ever get the chance.
Thanks. Only the Bernieite fringe worpress blog suggested actual malfeasance. The DailyKos article linked to by your inquisitr link suggested that that scandal was the crappyness of the machines. The NY purge issue was well publicized, and problematic, but neither that, nor the incompetent administration of the election in Arizona seem to have meaningfully benefitted Clinton. Rather than not voting, why don't you vote and be one of the poll watchers. If the whole thing really is rigged, you can report Irregularities to the FEC and press.
What has Jerry Brown done or failed to do to earn your "shit" rating? By every measure I've seen or heard, he has been a very successful governor.
Accepting for the moment your criticism of HRC (and ignoring for the moment that Trump is the incarnate apotheosis of the Republican party, and not its hijacker), doesn't Trump also possess all the negative qualities you ascribe to HRC? Isn't it fair to say that 1) Trump is a loud-mouth, bombastic blatant racist who encourages violence, and completely blatantly corrupt while also an obvious warmonger, and also so blatantly in favor of enriching the 0.01%; and 2) Hillary is only half as bad?
My quick Google search (nach) only shows only Bernieite fringe media coverage of similar allegations and none describing quite what you are describing. Do you have a source?
How would gerrymandering affect a popular vote?
Wikipedia says Holder's net worth is $10m, so I doubt he makes that per year. Any source for that, or the allegation that he waited until after the statute of limitations had run to prosecute the banks?
Using facial recognition, it is easy to track where everyone goes, and we can no longer rely of the laws of economics to protect our privacy.
In this case (and adding to my post below) the defendants may have another argument that they never consented to the relevant recordings, since their appearance in court may not have been voluntary (if they were subpoenaed) or because they should not have to give up X-much privacy (where X is having their conversation recorded) to voluntarily exercise their right to appear in court.
The defendants should have a good case to exclude the evidence, since they cannot be reasonably said to consent to the recording.
This is too bad, since I really don't like big firms conspiring to rip off taxpayers.
This was in California.
If your driving isn't showing impairment you aren't too intoxicated to drive.
There is an admirable Hunter S. Thompson logic to your statement. But by that standard many people will find that they suddenly became "too intoxicated to drive" on a straight road when it curved right in front of them
I believe that the fairness doctrine only applied to broadcast transmissions which used a public resource (spectrum).
I upgraded for bells and whistles, but WP 8 was really good and Metro is perfect for single task devices.
I think they do this to bolster Goldwater's assertion that "Extremism in defense of liberty [i.e. right-wing goals] is no vice," and blame all the evil of the 20th century on forms of leftism (as if Stalin and Mao weren't bad enough).
If he were really the son of a textile mogul, I doubt he would have become a traveling salesman, and I doubt that he would have sent the money home for his parents to live on.
This isn't something I've researched beyond 5 minutes of googling, so if I am missing something, let me know. But both Wikipedia and the NYT obit of HRC's father indicate that HRC's paternal grandfather was merely an employee of the textile mill where HRC's father worked before becoming a traveling salesman.
However Hough Rodham did well enough to retire from business at 59, so he may have wound up fairly well off.
There may be good reasons to have authority to (de)escalate outside the hands of the flight crew. I can't think of any though, since they have more literal skin in the game than anyone else.
That woman needs to be shamed for being stupid, but more importantly, for denouncing someone out of the norm to the authorities.
People used to do that in German occupied countries during WWII: they tipped off the Gestapo that this-or-that person looked or acted Jewish, or didn't seem to like the occupants, etc.
The "see something, say something" policy seems to be like the publicly accessible brakes that they used to have on trains: if the person wrong, then you have delay and an incensed economist; if the person is right, you have avoided a mass tragedy.
If we could quantify how much delay and hurt feelings == one human life, then we could know how often these people would have to be right to justify the program and anonymity of the tipsters. But I don't think it is a close call.
Almost needless to say that alerting the authorities when you see someone doing something suspicious on a plane is very different from turning Jews over to the Gestapo. Unfortunately this woman's definition of "suspicious" was influenced by ethnic prejudices. But if we want intelligent and rational people to "say something" then you will need to let quite a few prejudiced and overly suspicious people do this.
She helped build civil rights cases in the South, which a lot of people find admirable.
She was actually re-elected to the Senate—so elected twice.
If the her appointment as SoS was to placate her, then presumably she built enough genuine support to need placating (nobody is placating Cruz or Kaisch, after all).
Very few people at that level can claim to have done it on their own. Trump is the son of a millionaire real estate developer (who's ROI is less than an index fund would have produced); Romney is the son of a millionaire industrialist and governor; McCain's father was an admiral and his wife is a beer heiress; George W is the son of a President and his father is the son of a wealthy banker and senator.
I hope you didn't accidentally vote for any of these people!
If you object to the extra hop that your signal would take, and assuming probable cause and warrant: 1) would you be OK with the telephone company providing realtime telemetry to LEOs;2) would you be OK with a stingray that only caused an extra hop for the warranted phone?
Yeah, the value of the stuff stolen is beside the point: robbery is much worse than theft. I think the most likely scenario is that they employee was robbed of the chicken wings and his/her cell phone, and that police inferred that whoever had the cell was the robber (how else would they know the IMEI, phone number or the suspect?). I am OK with intercepting a signals from an stolen phone because there is no reasonable privacy expectation in something you stole.
Kenneth Starr exonerated the Clintons for "Travelgate" and "Filegate" (waiting until after the 1998 election to do so). Yet I bet we will hear all about them, as if nothing was ever resolved.
Republicans still harp on Hillery's cattle futures windfall (savvy investor enrages Republicans)
Whitewater was a bust, but we will hear all about Clinton's pardons of some people convicted in that investigation (his alternative was to let friends remain in jail for stuff that would have never been prosecuted but for the chance of impeaching him).
And now we can add Benghazi victims to the Clinton Death List that our elderly acquaintances forward around.
Accepting your premise for the moment (even though it suggests that corporations and aliens should be tax exempt): If you are the buyer, then you are "paying" for the representation in your home state, if you are the out-of-state seller, then you are collecting taxes, but not actually paying them.
It is ironic and unfortunate that South Dakota—which got rid of usury laws to attract credit card companies to their state—now complains that out-of-state vendors aren't paying their fair share.
Look, OBVIOUSLY it is possible to get permission to legally drive a vehicle around full of gasoline...
It is also obviously legal to fill a car with gasoline at places other than gas stations - people that run out of gas do this all the time using a one gallon container.
There would have to be a specific law prohibiting this particular job.
In Los Angeles (and probably everywhere), you cannot sell gas without having a special license and approval from some weights and measures agency, so it is illegal by default and I doubt any bureaucrat wants to risk their career by approving this — even if somehow all safety and emissions requirements were met.
I am reminded of a story here a few years ago, where a guy built a pedicab out of parking-sign poles and was not given a license to carry passengers because the local authority had no way of knowing it wouldn't fail catastrophically.